ORIGINAL: chuckles When you say much worse, Would I be right in assuming that means the time when the Russians built up enough strength to go on to the offensive would just be pushed further into the future (a matter of months Im guessing) or do you think the Soviet would lose the game because of it?

I meant the problem of the Soviet player running away would be worse.Soviet players don't want to run but if they don't then they'll be cut to pieces.Lower Axis mobility and provide VP incentives for Soviet players to fight forward and most of them will.

Honestly, the surprise turn has little effect on how hard it is for the Soviet to fight forward. What determines this ability is one, the combat system which makes a Soviet attrition strategy impossible and two, the mobility of the German mobile units.

Japan is an interesting case here as well. They actually "won" the peace post WW2. Showing that their previous policy of colonialism and economic autarky was unnecessary and self defeating. Although they now have a terrible deflation problem that should have been addressed long ago. (BOJ finally has decided to get serious about this.)

The Japanese are blowing up their economy, and the money printing will only make things worse. If you're interested in the how/why check out this piece from Kyle Bass, too much to get into here. (skip ahead to 8:45 for his start)

Printing money is exactly what they need to do, and lots of it. But they should have done this long ago. Here is my link:

I used to be a pretty hard core monetarist. I indeed attended Chicago, but for law. My jurisprudential guru Richard Posner has also changed his mind, so it's not just me. The Chicago school ain't what it used to be.

The last few years have changed my mind in a big way. Keynes is looking pretty damn good right now. Possibly the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

People seem to forget that without said lunatics (Hitler and Stalin) there would be no war in the first place. We must have rules to reflect the political realities in a game of this scale. Indeed there should be more. Certainly concerning the Soviet running in 1941. Stalin simply would not tolerate any Commander doing that. Same for Germans running to Poland in the winter of 1941.

If a player wants to take on the role as dictator of Germany in WWII then WITE is not the platform for it. Read the bi-line for the game, you, the player is not Hitler or Stalin. You represent the High Command. You take your orders from Hitler or Stalin. Hitler wants a short war. So there you are.

If you want to be Hitler you need to play some WWII strategic level game where you can do pretty much as you please with your available resources. There are quite a few around I might add.

Does the argument really have to be so mutually exclusive? I think it'd be cool to have a bunch of alt-history scenarios/options, such as "free set-up" for one or either side, "random leader ratings", "Germans can spend AP to construct SUs and airbases", "First Winter severity is random", "Germans can spend AP and MP to winterize units", "Soviet leader ratings are ? until they have been engaged in multiple battles", etc etc

If a player wants to take on the role as dictator of Germany in WWII then WITE is not the platform for it. Read the bi-line for the game, you, the player is not Hitler or Stalin. You represent the High Command. You take your orders from Hitler or Stalin. Hitler wants a short war. So there you are.

And you know that I am not recommending this. Since Halder is usually replaced early on, a more forceful presentation of the realities of war in the east to Hitler may have been possible. His WWI experience was on the west front and he may have been open to reason from a general with east front experience.

If a player wants to take on the role as dictator of Germany in WWII then WITE is not the platform for it. Read the bi-line for the game, you, the player is not Hitler or Stalin. You represent the High Command. You take your orders from Hitler or Stalin. Hitler wants a short war. So there you are.

And you know that I am not recommending this. Since Halder is usually replaced early on, a more forceful presentation of the realities of war in the east to Hitler may have been possible. His WWI experience was on the west front and he may have been open to reason from a general with east front experience.

Hitler never was open to reason. Not before Stalingrad. Not after Stalingrad.

Halder was fired due to his continued disagreement with Hitler over his, (Hitler's) conduct of the war. His replacement, Zeitzler, was thought to be more pliable and optimistic. His replacement, Guderian was not any more able to make Hitler see reality than his predecessors.

Honestly, the surprise turn has little effect on how hard it is for the Soviet to fight forward. What determines this ability is one, the combat system which makes a Soviet attrition strategy impossible and two, the mobility of the German mobile units.

Losing SW Front on turn 1 is no joke.

Well, yes, I realize that. I do think that some adjustments have to be done, especially in regards to this Lvov problem. I absolutely detest the Lvov opener, and as I am playing against the AI only I decline to send any units South of Tarnopol on turn 1. But to completely do away with the surprise turn is a little bit much in my opinion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

quote:

ORIGINAL: rmonical

quote:

If a player wants to take on the role as dictator of Germany in WWII then WITE is not the platform for it. Read the bi-line for the game, you, the player is not Hitler or Stalin. You represent the High Command. You take your orders from Hitler or Stalin. Hitler wants a short war. So there you are.

And you know that I am not recommending this. Since Halder is usually replaced early on, a more forceful presentation of the realities of war in the east to Hitler may have been possible. His WWI experience was on the west front and he may have been open to reason from a general with east front experience.

Hitler never was open to reason. Not before Stalingrad. Not after Stalingrad.

Halder was fired due to his continued disagreement with Hitler over his, (Hitler's) conduct of the war. His replacement, Zeitzler, was thought to be more pliable and optimistic. His replacement, Guderian was not any more able to make Hitler see reality than his predecessors.

There is a pretty well reasoned theory that Halder intentionally provoked Hitler into firing him in August 1942 after he realized that by mid-to-late July Blau had failed - and with it the war. After that point Halder pretty much forced conflicts with Hitler that he before this point chose to ignore or regarded as not important. Remember, Halder was ecstatic after Hitler dismissed Brauchitsch, saying that now the Heer would have a direct connection to the Führer and with it more power for him.

I used to be a pretty hard core monetarist. I indeed attended Chicago, but for law. My jurisprudential guru Richard Posner has also changed his mind, so it's not just me. The Chicago school ain't what it used to be.

The last few years have changed my mind in a big way. Keynes is looking pretty damn good right now. Possibly the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Isn't printing money, per the prior posts, really hard core monetarist as well (I believe Friedman would be fully on board)? Keynesian would be more of expansion of the direct government spending balance sheet, which while theirs is already pretty well expanded I'm unaware that Abenomics included a vast expansion of direct government spending and deficits.

Using for Axis 110 morale, forts 90. others 90, and admin points 100. For SOV, forts 110, others 100. Think its not too important. See from others that "119" is some sort of key number and will experiment a bit.

I used to be a pretty hard core monetarist. I indeed attended Chicago, but for law. My jurisprudential guru Richard Posner has also changed his mind, so it's not just me. The Chicago school ain't what it used to be.

The last few years have changed my mind in a big way. Keynes is looking pretty damn good right now. Possibly the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Isn't printing money, per the prior posts, really hard core monetarist as well (I believe Friedman would be fully on board)? Keynesian would be more of expansion of the direct government spending balance sheet, which while theirs is already pretty well expanded I'm unaware that Abenomics included a vast expansion of direct government spending and deficits.

Keynes would say that Japan is now in a liquidity trap. It may indeed be too late for printing money. But I really don't see any choice here for the Japanese, they have to throw the kitchen sink at their deflation problem and hope for the best, and that also includes fiscal situmulus, various reforms, all of it. Shock and awe.

Printing money is exactly what they need to do, and lots of it. But they should have done this long ago.

They've done lots of it, well over a decade of it. More won't save them. If printing money willy nilly created wealth Weimar and Zimbabwe wouldn't have been basket cases. If you believe economic salvation lies in the printing press, the discussion is probably moot, but if you have an open mind I would encourage you to watch the discussion, it is enlightening. Inflation distorts market pricing of supply and demand, and economic actors relying on distorted information make more misallocations of capital (capital cannot be printed, it ultimately reflects scarce goods). Japan is already spending 25% of taxes on debt interest, and that's while debt is practically free. As soon as they succeed in creating price inflation they're fooked. The math of Japan's situation is inexorable and dooms them with the path they're on.

BOJ only took halting steps, they never went all in. Now they are doing it for real directly targeting inflation and immediately aiming to double the money supply. Even though it may now be too late. Basically, they're taking a page out of the Bernanke playbook and then some.

The old BOJ leadership believed that the problem was fundamentally demographic and couldn't be solved by monetary policy. They may even have been right about this, but the proposition was never fully tested.

And really, what are the alternatives? Austerity? The experiments in Europe along these lines are not at all encouraging.

@carlkay58, thanks for insight. Trying new game vs AI SOV w/120 factors and Axis @100; will see what's up w/that

Regards inflation/money supply chatter... reminds of grad school, UC early 70s. Remembered that money supply cuts two ways, too little hurts quickly, too much hurts later. Politically easier to err on over rather than under. Over helps economic system in near term, so seems to be useful, but inflation long term is deadly. Money supply mavins should be trying to balance $$$ to economic growth. All this is not so easy because its future growth and its hard to measure current $$$. And which $$$ measure is controversial.

Never had Uncle Miltie's lectures, but sure heard from his priests. (Don't think current events have refuted their arguments, but apparently some current profs are sell-outs.)

BOJ only took halting steps, they never went all in. Now they are doing it for real directly targeting inflation and immediately aiming to double the money supply. Even though it may now be too late. Basically, they're taking a page out of the Bernanke playbook and then some.

Going 'all Weimar' isn't a solution when you've spent the last two decades severely distorting interest rates (and thereby investment) and pushing government debt to the stratosphere. I read his playbook back in 2002 and have protected savings accordingly from his inclinations. The price of gold has quadrupled since he advised the Japanese to print their way to prosperity.

"Like gold, U.S. dollars have value only to the extent that they are strictly limited in supply. But the U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost. By increasing the number of U.S. dollars in circulation, or even by credibly threatening to do so, the U.S. government can also reduce the value of a dollar in terms of goods and services, which is equivalent to raising the prices in dollars of those goods and services. We conclude that, under a paper-money system, a determined government can always generate higher spending and hence positive inflation." - Ben Bernanke, November 21, 2002

Ultimately, Bernanke confuses rising prices with rising wealth.

quote:

The old BOJ leadership believed that the problem was fundamentally demographic and couldn't be solved by monetary policy. They may even have been right about this, but the proposition was never fully tested.

Again, listen to the piece by Kyle Bass. He touches on the fact the country is shrinking, that their population base is very aged (now selling more adult diapers than toddler diapers). Printing money can't change this, in fact it merely robs the savers, and those who rely on the interest rates to provide their income. They're shooting themselves in both feet.

quote:

And really, what are the alternatives? Austerity? The experiments in Europe along these lines are not at all encouraging.

Since when is living within one's means 'austere'? Europe certainly hasn't tried that yet (except Estonia, who has actually cut spending (not just the rate of growth) and seen a much better rebound than the rest of the bloc), nor the U.S. for that matter. U.S. employment still hasn't recovered, and if bench marking labor participation to pre-recession levels our unemployment rate remains over 11%. I'd hardly call the policy that boasts that a success.

We need to take a page out of the Harding/Coolidge book. Those two dealt with a much more severe recession, and by reducing instead of increasing the government's burden on capital made sure you never heard of the Depression of 1920-1.

I suggest we try capitalism, a system of profit and loss, that by its very nature moves capital from wealth destroying activities (and actors) toward wealth building activities (and actors). The political efforts to obviate the loss portion of the system (which is just as important to its proper functioning) by fobbing it onto taxpayers is the prime cause of our extended difficulties. This also means we have to stop manipulating interest rates, that economic actors may better judge the underlying realities of supply and demand. I'm not holding my breath that this will happen, but I can hold the store of value that protects me from this policy to some degree.

Unemployment in the US is around 7.8%. That's pretty good compared to much of Europe. Our economy is actually growing again, albeit in fits and starts. With growth, it is possible to alleviate in time a lot of problems. But growth must come first, not thrift.

Spain is cruising around 25%. Greece isn't much better. I am wholly unpersuaded by the Estonia example.

Austerity sucks. It just leads to the paradox of thrift, as per Keynes.

Unemployment in the US is around 7.8%. That's pretty good compared to much of Europe.

The number of people employed today is 3 million fewer than the same time in 2008, while the population has grown by over 12 million people. Five years of monetary pumping have created the worst U.S. recovery since the Great Depression. The ONLY reason the touted unemployment number is 7.8% is because they have reduced the labor participation numbers to a 30 year low.

quote:

Austerity sucks. It just leads to the paradox of thrift, as per Keynes.

Keynes is wrong. Living within ones means is not 'austerity', it is the prerequisite reality to sustainable wealth creation. There must be savings before there can be investment. There must be investment before there can be increases in production. Demand is a market economy is always and only the other side of the production coin. You cannot consume (demand) that which has not been produced. What kind of work is being done is critical (and where Keynes and Krugman go off the rails suggesting we dig up money in bottles, or build up defenses against a non-existent alien threat). You need real market prices to figure out what work needs to be done, and our monetary authorities around the globe are working overtime to mask that reality.

Short answer No. Detailed answer: yes, but only in vanilla/historic scenario having however some cleverly thought out variant scenarios (or variants in core scenario) like V4V had. That was great to experiment and see which one (or a combination of which) tipped the scales of balance to the other side. 3-5 per side per scenario should be enough. Among these could be winter equipment, preparing for the long run, bringing all possible divisions from the west, no lend-lease help, Japanese attack etc.

Unemployment in the US is around 7.8%. That's pretty good compared to much of Europe.

The number of people employed today is 3 million fewer than the same time in 2008, while the population has grown by over 12 million people. Five years of monetary pumping have created the worst U.S. recovery since the Great Depression. The ONLY reason the touted unemployment number is 7.8% is because they have reduced the labor participation numbers to a 30 year low.

quote:

Austerity sucks. It just leads to the paradox of thrift, as per Keynes.

Keynes is wrong. Living within ones means is not 'austerity', it is the prerequisite reality to sustainable wealth creation. There must be savings before there can be investment. There must be investment before there can be increases in production. Demand is a market economy is always and only the other side of the production coin. You cannot consume (demand) that which has not been produced. What kind of work is being done is critical (and where Keynes and Krugman go off the rails suggesting we dig up money in bottles, or build up defenses against a non-existent alien threat). You need real market prices to figure out what work needs to be done, and our monetary authorities around the globe are working overtime to mask that reality.

The Great Depression was really a bunch of recessions, we are making all the same mistakes again. The unemployment rate and inflation rate is much higher if you simply use per 1985 formules.

Printing money always helps the rich and crushes the poor, saves the banks and lowers the standard of living of the working class. Keynes was a coward and champion of the rich.

Germany has won WW III as they did things the right way and the rest of Europe was to lazy and printed money to save the banks and not the poeple.

Its amazing the turn of events, Europe is on their knees begging Germany for hand outs, but still to lazy to live withen their means.

Whats going on in Japan and Korea and soon Europe has nothing to do with money at its core.

The birth rate is 1.1 way to low to keep the population above water. Japan can print all the money they want or save and pay off the bills. It will fall apart because there will be more poeple over 60 then under soon.

You can't have economic growth with a shrinking population.

Again simple math that can not be ignored.

Whats going on now has more to do with growing or shrinking populations, the shrinking ones have the wealth and the growing ones want it.

Pffft. "Intractable economic inferiority" my foot. The impressive thing about Germany is how strong that economy has been for the last century and then some. They have been punching well above their weight the entire time.

They didn't have to go to war in 1914 for economic reasons, either. All Germany has to do to win is...what they are doing now, as a matter of fact. Sit tight and allow their productivity to zoom ahead and dominate the European market and assume inevitable political leadership of Europe. Ironically, they don't want it anymore.

War is for chumps.

I fully agree. And Germany was certainly not forced to go to war in 1939, or to attack the SU in 1941. The decision to fight was primarily down to an expansionist and racist ideology, combined with a fear of the Soviets and Hitler's megalomania.

1. The very existence of such a brutal entreprise as WWII stems from a number of "psychological" conditions in the German leadership. Players that want a WWII but with a very reasonable German leader in charge are asking for an historical aberration.

2. Victory in wargames should measure performance relatively to the goals of the military entreprise portrayed, not the contribution to the delaying of defeat.

I 100% agree with those points... I have long argued that victory should be judged relative to historical achievements within the same timescale.

I would add, as another poster has commented, that the restrictions within the game should be tightened to prevent a German retreat to Poland in '41 winter OR a Soviet pull back in summer '41. For example, if there are less than 10 Sov Divs within 10 hexes of Smolensk by X date = automatic defeat, etc. Such conditions reflect the historically (insanely?) tight limits imposed by both Hitler and Stalin on their generals. WitE players are the generals, they are not the supreme command.